Posted on 12/26/2012 3:46:05 AM PST by LinnieBeth
We went to see The Hobbit yesterday and we thought it was awful. Been surprised that since it's release there haven't been any posts to the Hole.
Are you all disgusted with Part 1?
I think they could have showed the sense of humor and fun of the elves more then they did. Bilbo sees it as silliness, but that doesn’t mean it’s all there is to elves. It could be easily portrayed as Bilbo’s perception, not objective reality.
Also, Silvan elves are not High Elves, though their leaders often were. They were very different people culturally. LOTR deals almost exclusively with High Elves, and their leaders at that. There is no particular reason to believe all elves everywhere were so deadly serious all the time.
Agree with the rest of your comment.
” T’was pity stayed his hand”
My family and I saw it and we all liked it. We saw it at the IMAX theater 3D and loved the special effects and scenery of New Zealand. The beginning scene with the dwarves was a bit too long but the 3 hours went by fast and we were not bored at all.
It seems to me that with some careful editing, they could make a PG-13, PG, R, and even NC-17 version of the movie all at once.
Along with the ratings, they could edit each one for time, so for example, the PG-13 version would be short enough so that it would not be agonizing for younger teens to sit through. The longer the movie the more graphic.
The R version would be for theater and DVD, with the NC-17 (or “unrated”) version would only be for Blu-ray.
This could be a huge marketing gimmick. Show the PG-13 version in theater matinees, PG in evening shows, and release the R version in theaters at the same time as the R rated DVD is released, and the NC-17 (”unrated”) version as the “collector’s edition”, on Blu-ray only.
I disagree with your assessment.
With all of the unbelievable trashy crap coming out of Hollywood in recent memory, The Hobbit was at least very well done and followed the book as best I can remember. I have read it several times, along with the LotR trilogy since college in the 60’s, and found it delightfully entertaining. I go to the movies to be entertained, not to be a critic. If I don’t like something, I just shrug and say, “Well, I guess should have saved my money and waited for that one to come out on HBO”.
But to say this movie was “terrible”? This movie was by no means terrible. What movies do you normally see that are so “good” in comparison? Much to do about nothing, in my opinion. It is just a movie after all. And about a fantasy world at that.
Some people aren’t happy with anything in the world. Trust me, I know several. They would find something to complain about this movie and most other things in their lives because they see the world through that prism of the glass is half empty and bemoan how it is going to be completely empty soon. Whoa is me! I see the world through the prism of the glass is half full and am thankful for the advantage of even having some water to drink and how I should count my blessings in life and not focus on all the little things to complain about. Including this movie. I enjoyed it. I wanted it to keep going. I can’t wait for the subsequent parts to be released.
It’s getting close to shark jumping time. Jackson presents a hunky Thoren, and seems one blandishments away from adding Ewoks. Jar-Jar, the Goblin King indeed.
That’s nice. Start a blog and pimp it. I’ll spend my money however I like regardless of your approval.
I agree with you about the Golbin King. I had to rationalize that one a bit. The Hobbit was written as a children's story, early in Tolkein's career and long before LOTR was published. The story got darker as Tolkein developed it. A lighter touch in The Hobbit follows Tolkein's creative arc, but it's jarring if one has seen LOTR first.
I still didn't like the Goblin King, though.
My husband and I both had the same reaction and until now we haven’t heard of anyone else not liking it. We both thought it was a stinkeroo. Slow, predictable, bad script and dialog, too many fricking weird names for swords, places, whatever, who gives a rat’s @ss. Gandalf looked like he was barely alive.
It took me a while to get used to that, we saw it in HFR 3-D. But eventually I settled in, and it certainly was visually spectacular.
I liked the movie. I think the fight with the goblins was longer than it needed to be, and also a bit too unbelievable — one thing I appreciated in the LOTR films was that you could actually believe that the people could win those battles they were fighting — improbable, but not impossible.
The Hobbit goblin battle played like a cheesy comedy routine. You keep wondering why they keep attacking one at a time, and forget that they have bows and arrows after the first 30 seconds, Also you wonder how the Goblins survived so long given how poorly constructed their walkways seem to be.
Anyway, as far s HFR, I haven’t seen it yet in IMAX, but I’ve been told HFR Imax is spectacular, and because it is IMAX it won’t feel “fake”, like I felt the first 20 minutes of the film were in 3-D HFR.
I believe if you were to do a bit of self reflection that you are not truly all that sorrow that you offended anyone. From your post I say that’s exactly what you wished to do.
My daughter and I enjoyed it immensely. It isn’t LOTR, nor is it meant to be. I enjoyed Bilbo and the rest of the characters, the action and the scenery. It was over before I knew it! Can’t wait for the second part.
As with the LOTR films, I am impatiently awaiting the opportunity to watch it a home several times, to “see it.” There are so many things built into these movies, nuances, scenery, etc, that it takes quite a few viewings to get through it.
And we (son & I) loved it too. Didn’t feel like 3 hours.
Lose me on that one. Such action may be a virtue, but it's mercy or pity, not courage.
Great lines. We did comment discuss, think about, the Gandalf line about the little things holding back evil.
You lose me on your. I bet you have a shirt saying: “Kill them all and let God sort them out.”
“When you go to destroy a monster, make sure you don’t become one to.”
If you still don’t understand, but yet want to then I suggest you study the differences between the American revolution and the French.
I will bet a rather large sum that Tolkien never wrote a line whereby he confuses mercy/pity with courage. He knew the meanings of words.
As I said, Bilbo showed virtue by not killing Bilbo, but that virtue was not courage. It was mercy, and I believe Gandalf later referred to it as pity.
America presently stays our hand in our attacks on our enemies, avoiding collateral damage as much as possible. But the virtue we show by doing so is not courage.
Courage, unlike most other virtues, has no inherent moral component. It can be exhibited in an unjust or even evil cause just as well as in a righteous cause, and it often has been.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.